On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 7:06 PM, Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org> wrote: > On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 3:08 PM, Andrea Pescetti <pesce...@apache.org> wrote: >> On 16/01/2013 Rob Weir wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 4:09 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: >>>> >>>> the Symphony contribution in itself is worth to be >>>> properly acknowledged and get exposure. >>> >>> Agreed. So I am glad then that you made the call for additional blog >>> authors. It is probably best if the Symphony contribution is >>> acknowledged, etc., by a non-IBM project member. That would make it >>> harder to dismiss it in some quarters. >> >> >> I can try to understand these concerns, but from a practical point of view >> it is quite difficult for someone who is not a (former) Symphony team >> member, or who wasn't involved with porting code from Symphony, to write a >> meaningful post about the improvements that the Symphony contribution made >> possible. >> > > Well, much of the material is on the wiki. And we probably don't want > to get too technical. > > But I can put a draft together at least. >
OK. Here is a draft: https://blogs.apache.org/preview/OOo/?previewEntry=merging_symphony_allegro_non_troppo Note that there are some suggested topics at the end, where I need detail. I welcome help from anyone who can help fill in the details. -Rob > -Rob > >> For example, analyzing the hundreds of [From Symphony] issues would not be >> feasible for me. Well, let's see if someone else takes the challenge, but >> honestly there's nobody better than the people who know Symphony to describe >> what was ported and what areas will benefit from its code most... >> >> Regards, >> Andrea.
